Game Thoughts: They Might Be Giants, but they didn't win the game edition

[Fencer]

Wait a moment -- did Coleman make a fumble recovery while wearing a cast???

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

Coughlin is not a great Xs and Os coach, but he is a supreme motivator. he will get his players to play their best in big games. whenever he faces NE it is always with somethng important on the line like a super bowl or undefeated season.

Agree and it also comes down to expectations going into the game as well. The Giants had a bad bad defense and pretty much allowed many teams to score "seemingly" at will.

This felt like the Patriots potentially steamrolling a team, but the Patriots played a bit down from what we expected (though certainly a good/enough game by football standards) and the Giants defense played lights out from where they were.

In the end, a 1 point game, both teams could easily have done more to win and they easily could have done less to lose. Just seems, with these 2 coaches and teams, the last team to hold the ball (with a fair amount of time left on the clock) is going to make the plays they need to make to win.

 

[Rob0729]

We don't know he wouldn't have.

More accurate, stronger leg, I like his chances.

It's funny, no one remembers the kicks Vinatieri missed.

Yeah, the most ignored part of the Panthers' Super Bowl was that Vinatieri played so bad until the end of the game that he was the only reason the Pats were in a position to have to kick a last second field goal. He missed two relatively easy field goal and blew a kick off at the end of the first half that allowed the Panthers to score a field goal in two plays.

 

[Rob0729]

Think the whole Coughlin crap being in Belichick's head is all bullshyt.. some teams we match up well against and some less so, if anything all of these games are like a heavyweight fight, and this case as they coached together(2 years) under Parcells they know each other's tendencies..

There is no blueprint here, take advantage of our weakened O line and hurry Brady.. it is not that complicated.

Meanwhile speaking of blueprints.. the combined w/l totals for our last three opponents up to SB 49 are now have 10 wins and 17 losses, but no one brings that up. Baltimore 2 & 7, Indy 4 & 5 and Seattle 4 & 5.. did the Pats provide a blueprint on how to beat those teams??

Meanwhile we are on to the Bills, prepare for a week of Buffoonery from the head azzclown...

I agree. I think yesterday was more about half the Patriots' starting offense being out and the Pats being forced to play out of their normal game plan. I think there are several teams that the Pats would have gotten beat by a TD or more yesterday.

 

[luuked]

• I know they were concerned about protecting Brady and several plays showed why there was a concern, but I was not happy about the conservative nature of the play calling after the opening drive. Sure the first drive was a fairly conservative play calling, but the Giants adjusted especially when Edelman went out. McDaniels should have opened it up a bit before the 4th quarter.

• I know Brady was so so today, but he becomes a different QB in the 4th. He still made some mistakes and some of them could have been costly, but he still becomes a must better QB in the fourth. It is almost like he is Ali and likes to play a Rope a Dope.

I wrote the same to Ken's game thoughts but I will also mention it here.

Take a step back and take a look who played OL yesterday evening. They needed to put the training wheels (i.e. TE's, RB's that block) on our makeshift line otherwise you'd risk many more turnovers and injury to the QB. This meant that the Giants had a numerical advantage in coverage, even more so after Edelman was gone. I get that Brady's play was not very sexy but I find it hard to criticize him for anything but the INT because there simply was no consistency in OL play and very few open guys. Hell, both fumbles were horribly blown blocks by Blount and Stork. If he could have kept the ball for lets say a second longer on average per snap we would have been able to exploit the Giants with deep/intermediate passes. But every time Brady tried to let a route develop a bit he got hit and couldn't cleanly throw a pass. Similarly, slightly better protection might have allowed us to spread the Giants out and attack them like that. What I am trying to say, in a nutshell, is that the playbook was very, very minimized yesterday and this showed in Brady's performance.

Its the most basic requirement of a center. Its one thing getting pushed back, but being walked by on a corner run is simply unacceptable. It also wasnt against Marcel Dareus or Suh, it was against the giants third string tackle.

I am sure he will bounce back, because again, to get this far takes an awful lot of fight, but Stork returning to center looks like a higher necessity. So yes, the tackles coming back healthy will have multiple benefits.

Yes, lets replace a UDFA rookie player who played ALL snaps relatively well so far because of one penalty that ended up erasing a TD and led a few plays later to a Brady/LaFell brainfart. I wonder if people would be similarly upset about that situation if we had scored a TD directly afterwards or whether they would ignore it the same way that all of those Gronk OPI penalties are rarely mentioned around here. Gronks penalties are often drive killers since they cost us 10-20yd of field position.

Coughlin is in BB's head a bit. It is not that BB makes horrible calls but he worries to much about what Coughlin will do instead of just doing what they should.

The losses against the Giants seem to have a common narrative which is an injured Patriots offensive line. I understand (and hate) the media for trying to push those idiotic narratives about how the Giants are our Kryptonite or something. But those are as stupid as the Patriots own the Colts narratives. In the NFL it is all about matchups and past teams have no effect on what is going on today.

Hell, if this game ends like it did against any other team the media narrative would be how BB/Brady are in the head of the opponents coach because of throwing in the red zone in the end. It is all ********.

 

[Jackson 2]

Think the whole Coughlin crap being in Belichick's head is all bullshyt.. some teams we match up well against and some less so, if anything all of these games are like a heavyweight fight, and this case as they coached together(2 years) under Parcells they know each other's tendencies..

There is no blueprint here, take advantage of our weakened O line and hurry Brady.. it is not that complicated.

Meanwhile speaking of blueprints.. the combined w/l totals for our last three opponents up to SB 49 are now have 10 wins and 17 losses, but no one brings that up. Baltimore 2 & 7, Indy 4 & 5 and Seattle 4 & 5.. did the Pats provide a blueprint on how to beat those teams??

Meanwhile we are on to the Bills, prepare for a week of Buffoonery from the head azzclown...

The argument could easily be made that Bill Belichick was in Coughlin's head during the last 2 minutes plus of that game. Masterful clock management by one coach while the other guy whizzed down his leg.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

• I hate Ed Hochuli. Absolutely hate him. He has the most inconsistent and one sided officiating crew in the NFL. If the Pats lost, it wouldn't be the reason why, but some of the calls the Pats got and the non-calls the Giants got were absolutely ridiculous.
• I know they were concerned about protecting Brady and several plays showed why there was a concern, but I was not happy about the conservative nature of the play calling after the opening drive. Sure the first drive was a fairly conservative play calling, but the Giants adjusted especially when Edelman went out. McDaniels should have opened it up a bit before the 4th quarter.
• I know Brady was so so today, but he becomes a different QB in the 4th. He still made some mistakes and some of them could have been costly, but he still becomes a must better QB in the fourth. It is almost like he is Ali and likes to play a Rope a Dope.
• I don't hate Scott Chandler, but the guy has worse hands than Dobson ever had. Yet he keeps on getting the ball thrown to him and Dobson rides the pine. I know at least until today, the WR position is far deeper than the TE position, but Chandler has been a disappointment.
• Two bonehead plays that could have cost the Pats the game - Harmon tripping Amendola on the punt return that should have gone for a TD and David Andrews committing a holding penalty that would have sealed the game and ended up being a 10 point swing. The first one didn't matter because the Pats scored a TD anyway. The second one was far more of a risk of costing the Pats the game.

Good post, Rob, but I disagree with you on a few counts.

I think your hate of Hochuli is misdirected. He went under the hood and made the toughest call of the game when it counted and got it right. Some other ref made the exact opposite call a week or two ago. As I noted in Ken's thread, the Field Judge likes to call PI. He flagged Gronk for offensive PI, but did the same with Randle near game's end, called both phantom PIs on the Giant's big third quarter drive, and called the PI where LaFell's arm was held in the end zone, convincing Hochuli to overrule the Back Judge, who had the best view of it, but missed it entirely (rolling his eyes at the FJ during the officials' conference). The BJ also let Chandler (egregious) and LaFell (understandable, because he ducked) take blows to the head in the end zone. So, Hochuli is stuck with one official who makes his PI calls primarily based on whether the defender is trying to catch the ball or play defense and another who doesn't believe in dirtying the linen. He does what he can with that, much like coaches have to do with the players the GM drafts and signs.

McDaniels made some bad calls, but I wouldn't say that he was too conservative. The Blount runs were getting 3 yards most of the time, even when they weren't going well, and they were going for 7-8 enough to make the play action effective. With Edelman out and TEs staying in to help our 4th string and emergency OT with JPP, play action was an part of the passing game.

Andrews was asked to block down on a guy shooting the gap toward the playside. He was late, and he blatantly tackled a player that fell 6 inches short of getting a hand on Blount in the backfield. That's a mistake, as 2nd and 3 beats 1st and 11, but it was a penalty of aggression that he thought gave the play a chance. It was extremely poorly executed, but not as bad as a pre-snap penalty, of which the Pats had only one (Amendola's illegal motion which was declined).

 

[pencilneckgeek]

The last thing shown on the broadcast before cutting away to 60 minutes was Butler and Beckham, with their arms around each other, hugging and having a long chat. There sure seemed to be a lot of respect.

And Belichick was stepping-in to commend Beckham as well. Those two teams know and respect each other - one reason they play the last pre-season game each year, knowing that the coaches will not tolerate cheap shots with the real games a week away.

 

[Rob0729]

To talk about the Vinatieri vs. Gostkowski debate. From Peter King's MMQB:

When Gostkowski stepped up to kick, he was 263 of 300 on regular-season field goals in his career. As a Patriot, Vinatieri was 263 of 321.

Peter King's Monday Morning Quarterback, Week 10, Patriots-Giants | The MMQB with Peter King

So Gostkowski got to 263 in 22 less kicks than Vinatieri and made 87.7% of his kicks vs. 81.9% for Vinatieri. Also, Gostkowski is far better at kick offs even before they moved the kick off spot.

Not taking anything away from Vinatieri (who will probably go down as the reputation of the most clutch kicker in history), but as a pure kicker, Gostkowski is better.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

I think it's reasonable to apply the same standards to kickers as QBs. That is, "How many Superbowls has he won?" On that basis, Vinateri gets a spot in Canton, while Ghost is still a work in progress. That said, I trust Ghost to make the important kicks as much or more than Vinateri and from father out, so I'd rather have him. I think he's better, but he needs to go a little farther (but not much) to prove it.

 

[mihap]

Quick note, lost TD from Andrews hold wouldn't have clinched the game, would have put us up by 8.

Cincy worries me, the likes of Carolina not so much.

Nice job as always.

Cincy have no injuries. None, zero, nada, 0.
I think that they practiced with all 53 guys few weeks ago.

 

[SVN]

James White was invisible. The third down back is concerning, especially with Edelman out.

Adam Kurkjian‏@AdamKurkjian
"Protection was key for us on the fourth down play" also complimenting James White for chipping the ends
Jeff Howe ‏@jeffphowe 15m15 minutes ago
Jeff Howe Retweeted Adam Kurkjian
Yup, White chipped a couple times on the final drive to help Stork.

 

[SVN]

how about the nate ebner blitz ?

 

[Rob0729]

I think it's reasonable to apply the same standards to kickers as QBs. That is, "How many Superbowls has he won?" On that basis, Vinateri gets a spot in Canton, while Ghost is still a work in progress. That said, I trust Ghost to make the important kicks as much or more than Vinateri and from father out, so I'd rather have him. I think he's better, but he needs to go a little farther (but not much) to prove it.

I don't know how you can apply the Super Bowl wins standard on kickers. QBs are the most important player on the field. Of course they can be measured by Super Bowls. Kickers can't.

So you are saying a kicker who wins the Super Bowl in a game where they kick 3 extra points and no field goals is better than the kicker on the opposing team that loses but kicks 4 50 plus yard field goals. Based on the outcome of the Super Bowl where the losing kicker had a better game?

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Adam Kurkjian‏@AdamKurkjian
"Protection was key for us on the fourth down play" also complimenting James White for chipping the ends
Jeff Howe ‏@jeffphowe 15m15 minutes ago
Jeff Howe Retweeted Adam Kurkjian
Yup, White chipped a couple times on the final drive to help Stork.

I'm expecting the third down back to chip, plus gain yards in the game. The third down backs for the last 15 years on the Patriots have done it, so if he can't it will be a problem.

 

[bbobbo]

Is there a HD clip of this anywhere? I thought it was holding, but when seeing the replay, I was doubting the call.

 

[Mack Herron]

Adam Kurkjian‏@AdamKurkjian
"Protection was key for us on the fourth down play" also complimenting James White for chipping the ends
Jeff Howe ‏@jeffphowe 15m15 minutes ago
Jeff Howe Retweeted Adam Kurkjian
Yup, White chipped a couple times on the final drive to help Stork.

It is natural for people to tend to watch the ball. Blocking to many can be invisible. I did notice White pick up several while Blount had a low effort whif. This may give White more snaps next week, and possibly touches. They sure didn't give him many opportunities Sunday.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

I don't know how you can apply the Super Bowl wins standard on kickers. QBs are the most important player on the field. Of course they can be measured by Super Bowls. Kickers can't.

So you are saying a kicker who wins the Super Bowl in a game where they kick 3 extra points and no field goals is better than the kicker on the opposing team that loses but kicks 4 50 plus yard field goals. Based on the outcome of the Super Bowl where the losing kicker had a better game?

No. Don't sign me up for that strawman. QBs are talked about more and have more input on teh game outcome because they are the most important player on the field, but the same general thought process can be applied. I'm simply talking about judging players by how they perform when it counts and the pressure is the highest. We didn't believe in Malcolm Butler as an adequate CB#1, because he had a quick closing burst, worked hard, and was confident in his abilities. We believed in him because he made a clutch play that was necessary to win in a do-or-die situation. We believed in Vinateri, because he booted Snow Bowl FG to win the game. We believed in TFB when Manning was setting records and winning Superbowls, because Tom was doing his part to win three Superbowls to Manning's one (not counting last year; I'm talking back when Manning was relevant). I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that while we may think that Ghost is the superior kicker, he still has some work to do to prove that he is better than Vinateri ever was. Sure, he might not get the chance to prove it, as kickers don't get as many chances as QBs, but that doesn't mean that the test is not relevant. Perhaps, it's not Superbowls, per se, but it's playoff games or do-or-die late-season games. It could also be game-winning field goals, especially in difficult conditions. Again, I'd pick Ghost over vintage Vinateri, but Adam will be going to Canton someday, and Ghost has yet to earn his way there.

 

[Kontradiction]

Gostkowski is an all time great kicker for this team but, until his foot directly wins us a Super Bowl or two, Vinatieri is the best kicker this franchise has ever had. Those were two of the most pressure filled kicks that any kicker can every experience as a pro and he hit both of them with room to spare. With Gost, I just wish Belichick had trusted him in Super Bowl XLII instead of going for it.

 

[Rob0729]

No. Don't sign me up for that strawman. QBs are talked about more and have more input on teh game outcome because they are the most important player on the field, but the same general thought process can be applied. I'm simply talking about judging players by how they perform when it counts and the pressure is the highest. We didn't believe in Malcolm Butler as an adequate CB#1, because he had a quick closing burst, worked hard, and was confident in his abilities. We believed in him because he made a clutch play that was necessary to win in a do-or-die situation. We believed in Vinateri, because he booted Snow Bowl FG to win the game. We believed in TFB when Manning was setting records and winning Superbowls, because Tom was doing his part to win three Superbowls to Manning's one (not counting last year; I'm talking back when Manning was relevant). I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that while we may think that Ghost is the superior kicker, he still has some work to do to prove that he is better than Vinateri ever was. Sure, he might not get the chance to prove it, as kickers don't get as many chances as QBs, but that doesn't mean that the test is not relevant. Perhaps, it's not Superbowls, per se, but it's playoff games or do-or-die late-season games. It could also be game-winning field goals, especially in difficult conditions. Again, I'd pick Ghost over vintage Vinateri, but Adam will be going to Canton someday, and Ghost has yet to earn his way there.

The thing is kickers have zero impact on any game except on very specific plays. Even the greatest kickers could never be in a situation to kick a game winning field goal in the Super Bowl or even a playoff game. That is just luck of the draw. Hell, most of the Super Bowls have been blow out rather than close games.

If Vinatieri blew out his knee in 2005 and never played again, he was a strong candidate for the HOF. But it wasn't for his entire body of work, but rather three kicks in crucial situation. Another ten years in the league as a top kicker solidified that he should be in the Hall.

But I still think there were probably better kickers in history that will never sniff the Hall because they never had one last second kick in the Super Bowl.

Just watching Gostkowski. He is a more talented kicker than Vinatieri was in his prime. Stronger leg and more accurate. He has been clutch when called upon. I am not going to discount his abilities and achievements just because he hasn't had the opportunity to kick a game winning FG in a Super Bowl. I am very confident he would be just as clutch as Vinatieri if called upon. Odds are he will never be called on though because most kickers are never put in a situation like that. Vinatieri was just lucky to be be in that situation multiple times and his skills and raw nerves made him perfect in those situations.